Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
v. No. __________________
United Coalition of Reason Inc. (the “Plaintiff”), for its Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction against Central Arkansas Transit Authority (“CATA”) and On the Move Advertising,
Inc. (“OTMA,” and, together with CATA, the “Defendants”), alleges as follows:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter for the reasons set forth in the
Complaint filed herein. Each and every allegation of that Complaint is incorporated herein
the basis of the viewpoint of the message in the proposed advertisement that the Plaintiff sought
3. The Plaintiff, in good faith, entered into negotiations with the Defendants to lease
advertising space on CATA’s buses. The Plaintiff’s advertisement would contain the text: “Are
you good without without God? Millions are,” followed by the website address for the
4. The Plaintiff, through its agent, Shaun Barbeau, of Media Brokers International,
Inc., reached a preliminary understanding with Defendant OTMA, an agent of Defendant CATA.
5. On Monday, February 28, 2011, Barbeau forwarded the proposed advertisement
7. Defendant CATA, through its Executive Director, Betty Wineland, found the
message of Plaintiff distasteful, responding to the suggestion in Plaintiff's advertisement with the
comment “I need Him now more than ever. Good Grief. I think we need to throw religion into
the advertising policy--as a negative. Stall while CATA reviews.” (Id. at 45)
8. On Tuesday, March 1, 2011, Wineland advised that “the transit authority will
accept the artwork, but there are caveats.” She then stated that she would impose additional
requirements because of the content of the message. The additional requirements were allegedly
to be required because the Plaintiff’s message had inspired “some repercussions and vandalism
in other markets.”
9. Although Wineland advised that the transit authority would “accept the artwork,”
in fact CATA never intended to accept the advertisement, but rather hoped that its additional
conditions would cause the Plaintiff to abandon its efforts to contract to run the advertisement on
CATA’s buses.
10. The requirement of a deposit was out of the ordinary. CATA had never required
an advertiser to place a deposit before. OTMA represented to the Plaintiff that it was legally
responsible for any damage to the bus and graphics. (Id. at 52).
11. Although the requirement of a deposit was unreasonable and unorthodox, and
indeed unconstitutional, the Plaintiff indicated its agreement to deposit $10,000 in order to go
13. Evidence in subsequent emails between CATA and OTMA indicates that CATA
hoped to avoid running the advertisements at all. The demand for a deposit was a ruse.
14. On March 9, 2011, CATA and OTMA declined the Plaintiff’s offer in a
15. That afternoon, the Plaintiff’s attorney contacted OTMA regarding the refusal by
16. On Thursday, March 10, 2011, Lydia Robertson prepared an email which was
purportedly to be “strictly from On the Move” but which, in fact, she asked Betty Wineland and
17. That email was forwarded to Betty Wineland and her counsel. The subject line
read “RE: Coalition-let On the Move take heat!” In her email to Betty Wineland, she stated:
“Below is the note I would like to send. It is strictly from On the Move and in previous emails,
I’ve written every word with an eye toward the very position they have taken. I am extremely
conscious regarding the First Amendment and covering everyone while I do it. Please know I
investigator and am not a stranger to court action. I am NOT an attorney, but I have never liked
18. The email continued: “Why not let me take the heat for awhile? Leave CATA out
of it; CATA can say On the Move responded on our own. See what Carolyn thinks about the
brief note below. Probably since he has contacted us, I don’t need Shaun’s permission to share
deprive the Plaintiff of access to advertising on CATA’s buses. The deposit requirement was not
made in good faith, but was a pretext for refusing to deal with the Plaintiff.
20. The threat of vandalism is substantially overblown. The Plaintiff has run
advertising programs like this one in thirty-six markets (two of the markets twice). There have
been four instances of vandalism and only one to the property of the vendor. The advertisements
ran in Fayetteville, Arkansas, without incident. The Central Arkansas Freethinkers have
displayed an informational booth on the Arkansas State Capitol grounds next to a crèche erected
by a local Christian association. That informational booth has not been subjected to vandalism.
In 2008 the Central Arkansas Freethinkers used a “Beware of Dogma” billboard in North Little
Rock to celebrate the holiday season. The billboard was not damaged.
22. After much negotiation, the Plaintiff has been unable to secure a reasonable offer
from OTMA and CATA. The reason that OTMA and CATA have refused the Plaintiff’s
24. OTMA has taken the position that it is a private business, not subject to the First
Amendment, when in fact it is an agent for a public entity. A number of communications from
OTMA and its attorney were designed to mislead the Plaintiff as to the nature of
26. For the reasons set forth in the Complaint, a preliminary injunction is necessary to
27. An injunction requiring CATA (and its agent OTMA) to contract with the
Plaintiff for the lease advertising space on CATA’s buses on the same terms that other
advertisers are permitted to do so is necessary to protect the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and
28. The following exhibits are attached hereto in support of the motion
2011;
States District Court Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests a hearing at the Court’s earliest convenience, and
upon a hearing the Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction directing the Defendants CATA
and OTMA to provide advertising space to the Plaintiff on the same terms that it provides such
space to other advertisers, without discrimination on the basis of the viewpoint of the Plaintiff’s
advertisements.
Respectfully Submitted
_________________________
J.G. “Gerry” Schulze
Attorney for Plaintiff
Ark. Bar No. 83156
J.G. Schulze
Baker Schulze & Murphy
11219 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 315
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
Telephone: (501) 537-1000
Fax: (501) 246-8550
E-Mail: gschulze@b-s-m-law.com
William Burgess
American Humanist Association
1777 T Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 238-9088
Fax: (202) 238-9003
E-Mail: bburgess@americanhumanist.org
(pro hac vice motion pending)